UNION RENEWAL: LESSONS FROM THE UK GAS INDUSTRY

BRIAN PEAT

RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY

Minshull House 47-49 Chorlton Street

Manchester M1 3FY

44(0)1612476160 b.peat@mmu.ac.uk

1

Abstract: Examines the process of union renewal in the context of the UK Gas Industry.

Using the collective as the central characteristic of trade union organisation, presents a

conceptualisation of union purpose that facilitates an empirical examination of workers’

collective understandings of the purpose of trade union organisation as a basis for examining

the potential for the realisation of union renewal. Concludes that the potential for union

renewal in the industry is presently undermined by workers’ restricted perception of the

collective nature of trade union organisation and purpose. Interestingly this restricted outlook

is found not to be undermining union joining.

1.0 Introduction

The results of a conceptual and empirical examination of the relations between workers and

trade union organisation in the context of the UK gas industry are presented. Fairbrother’s

(1994, 1996a) claim that the restructuring of the public services in the UK provides the

conditions for a revitalised trade union movement is examined. The purpose of this

examination is to articulate a deeper understanding of the nature of the relation between

workers and trade union organisation than is often presented in the literature. By developing

such understanding it becomes easier to comprehend why the real potential for union renewal,

particularly in the form articulated by Fairbrother (1990,1994,1996a,1996b,2000), remains,

for the most part, unrealised.

The results of this study concur with views of Hyman (1975, 1983) and (Michels 1962) that

suggest that work and employment relations presently existing in the majority of workplaces

are more likely to restrict the active identification of collective interests rather than support

their promotion. Despite the existence of conditions propitious to the development of union

2

renewal as articulated by Fairbrother (ibid) the empirical results demonstrate that the process

of union renewal is not taking place in the workplaces studied. These conditions are in

addition shown to be producing the opposite of union renewal, that is, movement towards

increased bureaucracy and away from participative democracy. At the same time the results

also show that it cannot be assumed that individualised perspectives and management

practices necessarily undermine workers’ desire to become union members.

It is concluded that the union renewal and individualisation perspectives underestimate the

complexity of trade union development. Both approaches present partial perspectives and as a

consequence are unable to adequately account for the real situations found in the workplaces

studied.

In order to focus on the relationship between workers and trade union organisation rather

than workers and employers, a definition of union purpose that brings together these aspects

(union purpose and union organisation) from the workers’ perspective is presented. The

understanding of union purpose developed does not presuppose the world to be simply made

up of either atomised individuals or economic / social classes. It attempts to deal with trade

union organisation as understood, experienced and practiced by groups of workers in their

place of work without denying the importance of individuals or classes.

In addition despite trade unions being widely understood as collective organisations (Mann

1973; Beynon 1984; Waddington and Whitston 1997; Deery and Walsh 1999; Terry 2000) a

great deal of industrial relations research focuses on individual workers and / or key

informants, (for example, union activists) rather than collectives. Thus, the dynamics of

collective interaction between workers and trade union organisation is often missing from the

3

analysis. In contrast this work focuses on the collective nature of trade unionism by: 1)

conceptualising trade union purpose in terms of the interactions between workers’ collective

interests and trade union organisation, and 2) undertaking the collection and analysis of

empirical data from individuals and groups, based on that conceptualisation.

2.0 Background

The twin concerns for social order and social welfare previously embedded in UK public

sector industrial relations (Hyman 1989) have been subsumed, revised and replaced over the

past two decades (Mailly et al 1989; Sheldrake 1991; Kessler and Bayliss 1992; Thompson

and McHugh 1995). There is little doubt that this upheaval has had a negative impact upon

workers’ conditions of employment and the ability of their representative organisations to

influence managerial decision making (Ackers et al 1996; Kessler and Bayliss 1998, Wallis

2000; Millward et al 2000). Whether organised trade union responses have favoured the

retention of co-operative relationships with management or the use more conflictual

rejoinders workers have had to face up to this loss of trade union influence. Evaluation of how

these changes have impacted on worker-union relations is bounded on one side by an

optimistic assessment that focuses on opportunities for union renewal (Fairbrother 1990;

1994; 1996a; 1996b; 2000) and on the other side by a pessimistic assessments that focuses on

the recent decline in union membership (see Millward et al 2000: 230-236).

Fairbrother's (1996a) analysis of the consequences for workers and their trade unions of the

reorganisation and restructuring of public sector during the 1980s and 90s, leads him to

postulate that it is possible for workers to exploit the resulting circumstances in order to

renew their unionism. Fairbrother contends that trade union democracy involves the active

control of trade union leaders by the workplace membership, rather than the passive consent

4

redolent of the old structures. Thus union officials should become:

[D]elegates of the workplace rather than representative leaders who speak on behalf of

the workplace in the abstract……..It [union renewal] is a reversing of the flow of the

traditional relationships characteristic of most unions, particularly in the state sector,

so that the national level resources and facilitates rather than represents and thus

controls (Fairbrother 1996a: 143).

This movement towards more participative forms of union democracy is central to

Fairbrother's conception of union renewal (Fairbrother 1990; 1994; 1996a; 1996b; Fairbrother

and Waddington 1990). In contrast to arguments claiming that it is highly unlikely, if not

impossible, to avoid the creation of bureaucratic relations (Hyman 1975, 1983, 1989; Michels

1962) Fairbrother claims that the possibility of creating ‘more democratic’ union forms exists

in the context of the restructuring of the state industries (Fairbrother 1996a; Fairbrother and

Waddington 1990).

Fairbrother argues that whilst the detail of reorganisation and restructuring has varied to suit

particular organisational conditions a general pattern is evident. This is a movement from a

situation where centralised bureaucratic management structures dominate to one where

decentralised management structures predominate (Fairbrother 1990; 1994; 1996a; 1996b;

2000). This in turn has led to a crisis for public sector trade unions. Their centralised and

bureaucratic machinery designed to facilitate national bargaining is, it is argued, unable to

cope with the new management structures and practices.

The new structural imperatives require local bargaining in line with devolved management.

Thus, the existing union bureaucracies supported by consensual relationships and

standardised conditions of service, policed by a hierarchy of knowledgeable stewards and

5

professionals are unable to meet the challenges of the new workplace (ibid). That is, the

restructuring of public enterprise has undermined the material constraints that previously

restricted autonomous trade union activity in the workplace. As a consequence local

initiatives, intended to deal with the new conditions, are being independently instituted by

workplace activists. These initiatives are reported to involve the development of new

structures and union ideologies. It is these structures and ideologies that according to

Fairbrother (1990, 1996a) are creating the possibility of a renewed trade union movement.

The new structures are said to facilitate more participative and active forms of unionism,

stress the importance of egalitarian forms of organisation and are decentralised. This is in

sharp contrast to the previous structures that are described as remote, centralised and

hierarchical (Fairbrother 1996a). The actualisation of the renewal process is therefore

dependent upon worker / activist disaffection with past union forms based primarily on

representative democracy and workers’ / activists’ recognition of the value of implementing

new structures based on participative democracy.

Union renewal is therefore presented as an ‘emergent’ form of unionism whose emergence is

made possible as a consequence of particular historical contexts and the development of new

workplace conditions. (Fairbrother 1996a 112). The reality of renewal on the other hand is

dependent upon workers’ practical and subjective responses to the past and present contexts.

The viability of the union renewal thesis is thus a question that will only be resolved in the

experiences and practices of workers over time. However, this does not mean that theoretical

issues are not involved. The principle theoretical issue underpinning the renewal thesis is the

purpose and function of workplace trade union organisation and government. This issue is

also central to arguments that highlight attitudinal change towards trade union membership

6

amongst individual workers as underpinning the decline in union membership (Millward et al

2000; Phelps Brown 1990).

Although the responses of workers are predicted to be very different the implication of both

approaches is that in the contemporary workplace the old relationship(s) however, determined

have been severed and a new situation is developing. However, discussion of theoretical

issues does not feature to any great extent in either approach reflecting the lack of theoretical

and conceptual development within the field of industrial relations in general (Kelly 1998). In

contrast this work starts by theorising the relationship between workers and trade union

organisation.

3.0 Conceptualising Union Purpose

Despite trade union organisations being widely conceptualised as collective organisations,

how this collectivity is constituted is not clear (Kelly 1998). Most commonly it is

theoretically and empirically reduced to some aggregate of individual identities and interests,

for example, Union Commitment (Meyer and Allen 1997), Public Choice Theory (Olson

1971) and Mobilisation Theory (Kelly 1998). These approaches treat the individual worker as

the basic unit of analysis. However, as Offe and Wiesenthal (1985) make clear, such

approaches misrepresent the complexity of the collective relationships involved in trade union

organisation and government.

Adapting Ollman’s (1993: 147-177) analysis of the components of class consciousness:

From the perspective of the collective ‘union purpose’ is not simply a matter of the union

organisation having a particular understanding of each individual’s relationship with the

union. Nor is it just a numerically larger version of individual interests. It is understood as

7

embodying a shared interactive approach to understanding and acting upon the particular

world union members have in common. It reflects a set of judgments and behaviours reserved

for these common situations where an individual’s fate is inextricably linked to the fate of the

group. It embodies and expresses a way of thinking done in common, usually in a common

place, using common language and advanced or retarded by common pressures and

constraints. This also means that the collective purpose is elastic and changing. It

encompasses all the stages in its evolution together with the time it takes to occur. That is, the

process of developing a collective (trade union) purpose is not external to what it is but rather

at its centre.

The preceding conceptualisation is not intended to imply that individual interests are

irrelevant but that union purpose is more than simply the sum of individual interests. It is

something that grows out of the common circumstances, experiences, issues, problems and

interests that gives life to the collective organisation underpinning workplace union activity.

What is important is what an individual comprehends and does as a member of the group, not

his or her personal thoughts and actions.

The workers spontaneous source of identity is collective solidarity with each other:

each responds almost automatically to what he [sic] perceives as being the group’s

goals, even if he [sic] believes them to be irrational. (Mann 1973: 50).

Union purpose is therefore conceptualised as both a process and a relation that: -

• Develops through individuals in the group interacting with each other and opposing

groups in situations that are peculiar to workers as employees.

8

• Has its main point of reference in the situation and objective interests of workers as a

group in capitalist society and not the subjective interests of individual workers.

• Develops from whatever the group purpose is, into and alongside the purpose that

maximises the group(s) chances of realising their interests.

The above presupposes that for trade union organisation to exist the following conditions

apply:

1. The existence of collective identity and interests founded on group and opposing group

interests (that is, between workers and employers or their agents) often referred to in the

industrial relations literature as ‘them and us’ orientations.

2. The perception that trade union organisation and methods offer a viable route to the

realisation of group interests. Workers’ objective interest in developing trade union

organisation is here given a definite role in their thinking.

3. A level of activity consciously directed towards the production and reproduction of trade

union organisation and methods. That is, even where workers develop a collective identity

and perceive trade unionism to be the most viable route to the realisation of their interests

they must still respond in ways to make what is possible actual.

4. The direction of movement of union purpose amongst a group of workers can not be

ascertained by identifying workers’ individual qualities. However, such data may help

explain why the subjective aspects of union purpose might not develop in individuals.

In addition the following consequences flow from the argument presented:

• All employees can be union conscious: trade unionism is not restricted to particular

sections of the working class.

9

• A union’s objectives and characteristics will in part* reflect the collective will of its

membership.

*This qualification is necessary in order to acknowledge

the influence on union purpose of other actors,

previously abstracted out of the argument. (For example,

trade union officials and employers).

• These objectives and characteristics will change as the collective responds in its own

way to the prevailing material and ideological conditions.

This does not mean that union purpose is or should be solely a function of workers’ collective

interests. What a trade union purpose is becoming is an empirical question however, the

presence of conditions 1-3 above provide a basis for assessing the subjective components

necessary for its development from the workers’ perspective. Viewed in this way what a

union purpose is from the employers’, managers’, union officials’ and governments’

perspectives becomes part of the objective conditions within which workers’ subjective

judgements are formulated.

Trade union purpose as conceptualised here, unlike other definitions presented in the

literature, does not restrict or proscribe the character of trade union organisation. The only

defining feature of a trade union is that it functions as a means of achieving workers’

collective interests.

4.0 Methodology

The research methodology adopted is underpinned by a philosophical perspective derived

from the critical realist (Bhaskar 1998) and dialectical materialist (Sayers 1985) standpoints.

Three epistemological consequences result. 1) The study of society is not reducible to an

investigation of just the circumstances within which humans act or the actions and ideas of

10

individual or particular groups of humans. Social research necessarily involves the

interpretation of both objective and subjective aspects of the particular parts of reality being

investigated. 2) The choice of data collection methods and analysis should try to capture

contradictions in social processes. 3) Studies that focus on visibly changing situations and or

new developments are more likely to facilitate the identification of underlying contradictions

than those that focus on situations of apparent stasis.

In concert with the above a case study strategy was used to collect objective and subjective

data on the social processes taking place within the visibly changing situation of the de-

nationalised UK gas industry1. Workplaces in two different companies within the industry

were used for empirical investigation, those being the Lattice Group plc Transco office in

Bolton Lancashire and the Centrica plc Billing Centre in Manchester. Lattice2 is principally a

gas transportation and pipeline maintenance (engineering) business, whilst Centrica is

principally a gas supply and utilisation (sales) business. Together these two companies

include most of what was formerly the British Gas Corporation. They trade in different

markets, and have different strategic objectives and industrial relations policies. Lattice is still

largely regulated and Centrica is unregulated and the post privatisation differential effects of

‘political contingency’ (Colling and Ferner 1995) are evident in their industrial relations

policies and practices. The workers involved in this study fall under the remit of UNISON3.

These are principally clerical, administrative, supervisory and technical workers. No

particular significance is attached to this group of workers however ‘white-collar’ workers

now constitute the majority of UK trade unionists (Cully et al 1999). They therefore represent

a purposive sample that supports the external validity of the study.

11

Data were collected from various sources including documents, observation, participant

observation, and semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interviews provide the bulk

of the data with between 35 and 40% of the workforces involved in the research, contributing

either directly or indirectly to the interview processes. The methods employed were the result

of compromises between the demands of the research perspective, established research

methods, and practical necessity. Two factors in particular influenced the adaptations used to

access group perspectives; first, the lack of established research instruments intended to

facilitate access to collective / group understandings other than the focus group and second,

the temporal and logistical problems of researcher access to work groups.

In the Transco case study and initially in the Centrica study the focus / work group

discussions took place without the researcher being present. This directly challenges the

emphasis placed on the role of the moderator in focus group research (see Goldman 1987).

Three aspects of group organisation and composition are considered to have supported this

approach. First, at both sites the focus groups were made up of pre-existing work groups.

Thus, the need to facilitate and allow time in the process for group integration to take place

was not necessary (see Bloor et al 2001). Second, the use of participants who have an interest

in the research topic reduces the need for a heavily structured approach to the discussions

(Morgan 2002). Third, all participants were issued with the topics / questions 1 week prior to

the focus group discussions and informed that all topics were to be covered within the time

allocated for discussion (only one group reported that they did not cover all the topics in the

time). Therefore a degree of structure was afforded indirectly.

In Transco focus group representatives (chosen by the group) were interviewed individually

by the researcher and data collected on the outcomes of the group discussions. In Centrica,

12

initial focus group representatives again chosen by the group were subsequently allocated by

the researcher to second stage focus groups. That is, these groups were made up of group

representatives and the same topics discussed. However, on this occasion the discussions were

moderated by the researcher (primarily to collect data rather than lead the group). Thus, the

particular adaptations to the focus group method used raise additional issues about the validity

and reliability of the data. For example, the absence of the researcher from the focus group

discussion process raises issues of biased reporting on the part of group representatives. Also,

even if reported accurately, it is not known if the views presented represent the views of the

group or simply those of particularly vociferous members of the group.

However, it is important to bear in mind the purpose of the methods used when considering

such questions. Apart from satisfying practical necessity and unlike typical focus group

research their use in this study was not primarily intended to access a wide range of opinion in

a more naturalistic setting than a one to one interview (Krueger and Casey 2000). Nor were

they used to observe (control) group dynamics and individual contribution, that is, the micro

dynamics of group interaction (ibid). They were used to facilitate a process of (focused)

dialogical interaction and to try to capture the collective understandings, feelings, and views

of those involved.

In this respect some aspects of the research situation that might normally be considered

problematical are viewed as integral to and or beneficial to the data collection process. For

example, removing the researcher from the discussions and the uncritical inclusion of

situations whereby particular individuals probably did have a disproportionate input is viewed

as reproducing a more normal work-group environment. Also by issuing the discussion topics

/ questions to all those involved and anyone who asked for a copy in advance of the focus

13

group discussions an opportunity was provided for cross group dialogue and increased general

awareness of what was being discussed. This was a conscious attempt by the researcher to

raise the dialogical validity of the work (see Kvale 1996)4.

With respect to the validity of the data provided by individual representatives (most of whom

used and supplied contemporaneous notes / aide memoirs of their group discussions without

being asked to do so); viewed as key informants (Mason 1996) they arguably, as a

consequence of their representative role, provide more reliable sources than key informants

who have no moral / ethical obligation to be accurate in their reporting. In addition, in

Transco most representatives were interviewed by the researcher within earshot of those they

were representing, thereby helping to sustain a focus on accuracy rather than satisfying the

perceived desires of the researcher a situation that also at times provoked additional input.

Also the researcher continually throughout the interview process sought clarification as to

whether what was being reported represented the views of the group or particular individuals

and how the perspective being presented had been arrived at. In the Centrica case study where

representatives presented their groups views to other representatives this challenge often came

from other members of the focus group rather than the researcher. In addition the reliability of

the data collected via the focus group interviews is afforded increased integrity as a

consequence of the large numbers of groups (70) involved compared to standard focus group

studies that use three or four groups (Morgan 2002).

Further, as previously noted this study also used alternative sources of data and collection

methods. Not by way of triangulation in the sense that one data set derived from say

observation is used to corroborate the findings of another set derived from some other source /

14

method. But by way of approaching the research problem(s) in a multi-faceted and holistic

manner whereby triangulation is understood as a means of accessing different aspects or

dimensions of the social phenomena being investigated, thereby increasing the validity of the

research (see Mason 1996: 145-149). The use and adaptations of the focus group method used

in this study therefore need to be judged in the contexts of the study as a whole and not as

isolated techniques with particular problems.

That said the level and depth of dialogical interaction that took place within the groups as

reported by the representatives varied considerably both between groups and over particular

issues within groups. It is not known which particular issues were discussed more than others

or whether certain groupings of workers tended to become more involved in discussions than

others, nor whether the eventual perspectives were enthusiastically or grudgingly adopted.

Thus, whilst the data collected is accepted as being valid it is clear that any claims to have

captured the collective responses of the workforces involved in the study must remain

circumspect thereby reinforcing the need for further theoretical and empirical study.

4.1 Data Analysis

Having chosen an employment context that has undergone and continues to be impacted by

radical change, (de-nationalisation and its aftermath) the accounts provided by workers, union

activists and managers are not taken to be simple reflections of that context. They are

understood as interpretations constructed within a particular socio-historical setting. This is in

line with the approach of critical theorists in general (Crotty 1998). However, in concert with

the materialist and dialectical outlook adopted the interpretations of those experiencing that

change can be expected to include manifestations of the underlying contradictions supporting

and undermining the changes taking place. Thus, the accounts provided by informants have

15

been analysed (reinterpreted) by the researcher in the light of prior analysis of the changing

context (meaning interpretation).

The analytical technique of ‘meaning interpretation’ used in this study re-contextualises the

original accounts within a wider frame of reference than that of initial appearances. This is in

contrast to the de-contextualisation that results from simple categorization (Kvale 1996). In

this study the wider frames of reference are provided by: a) the theoretical contexts of the

development of union purpose, b) development through dialectical contradiction implicit in

the concept of union purpose and c) the objective aspects of the environment and

characteristics of union organisation identified in the literature.

The interpretation process was also supplemented by ‘meaning condensation’ whereby

accounts are abridged using conceptual themes derived from theory. This process took place

in two stages. The initial condensation reduced and interpreted the empirical data in line with

the predetermined themes (for example, the presence of ‘them and us’ perspectives amongst

workers). The second stage reduced the information that resulted from the first stage using the

concepts identified from the literature5 as defining trade union organisation (Fig.1) and related

the results to the research objectives.

Fairbrother (1996a) argues that in some workplaces the possibility of renewal has been

blocked due to the ‘reaffirmation’ of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of union

organisation. This assessment is based on the assumption that the tension between

bureaucratic and democratic organisational form had previously been resolved in favour of

bureaucracy, producing a state of stasis in the development of union government (ibid: 140).

However, given the variability of contexts within which trade union organisations develop,

16

explicating organisational change is not simply a question of whether one organisation is

becoming more or less democratic than another. It is also a question of the impact of changing

conditions on the direction of internal movement in the social relations of the organisation

being investigated.

Fig. 1 Characteristics of Union Organisation and Government

TU PURPOSE Realise Interests

TU Organisation

TU Government

conflict

Co-operation

Bureaucratic

Democratic

Appearance

Function

Representative

Participative

Individual

Collective

Appearance

Function

Formulate, Express Pursue Interests

Power For

Power Over

Worker interests

Officials’ interests

Employer / Management Interests

State Interests

17

At its inception the staff union in the industry rigorously separated representation from

mobilisation, established a hierarchy of activism and control, and split the general

membership from involvement in the internal political process of the union (Spoor 1967).

This modus operandi characterised the union as a bureaucratic and hierarchical organisation

with membership involvement in the decision-making processes generally facilitated via the

practices of representative democracy. However, a historical analysis of the movement

between bureaucracy and democracy prior to de-nationalisation and reorganisation reveals a

long term internal tendency away from bureaucracy and individualised participation, towards

democracy and collective participation as outlined below.

Although the process of democratisation in the union has been heavily circumscribed by

liberal democratic notions of democracy, the history of the government of the union is

testimony to the admittedly slow and uneven, but inexorable, movement towards increasing

involvement of the membership in the decision making processes and politics of the union.

Particular signposts of this movement are: the inclusion, following membership pressure, of

improvements to pay and conditions as objects of the union; the formal registration as a union

following a referenda of the membership (Spoor 1967); membership involvement in industrial

action and activist challenges to union policy in the 1970s (Newman 1982); the development

of a government structure able to facilitate the active involvement of a large and diverse

membership (Ironside and Siefert 2000) and the provision of reserved posts and facilities for

self organised groups in the 1980s and 90s (Terry 1996; 2000). The latter changes have

however also been criticised for focusing activists’ attention on organisational practice

outside the workplace to the detriment of workplace organisation (Heery 2002). Nonetheless,

the historical evidence demonstrates that whilst worker-union relations in the industry were

18

hierarchical, bureaucratic, and representative, the dominant long-term tendency was for these

characteristics to be undermined rather than strengthened. Therefore in the period before de-

nationalisation, the characteristics of union government and organisation were not static, as

implied by Fairbrother, but tending to move in the direction of increasing participation. It is

against this background that the contemporary movement in worker-union relations in the

industry has been assessed.

5.0Findings

The findings from stage one are briefly summarised in Table 1. This table is only indicative,

uses arbitrary indicators and by its nature presents a simplified picture of a number of

interconnected, complex and often subtle social processes and relationships. The findings

from stage two identifying the direction of movement in worker-union relations within the de-

nationalised UK gas industry are then summarised. A more detailed presentation of the

findings is not viable within the context of this paper.

19

5.1 Stage One Findings

Table 1. Brief Summary of Initial Findings

Objective Aspects Transco (Lattice plc)

Centrica (Centrica plc)

Organisational Restructuring Company Union

Yes (Multiple) Yes (Multiple)

Yes (Multiple) Yes (Multiple)

Product Market Engineering/Service Sales/ Service Competition Minimal Full

Direct Regulation Yes No

Labour Process Specialist/Routine Project Based

Highly Routinised Continual Production

Labour Market Internal /Dual External/Dual % Male / Female (employees)

60/40 40/60

Unionised (Core workers) (Periphery workers)

Yes (85%) No

Yes (75%) Some (not known)

Union Recognition Yes Yes Company Approach to Industrial Relations

Pluralist (HRM)

Formal Partnership

Union Approach to Industrial Relations

Pluralist (Traditional)

Formal Partnership

Senior Management Approach to the union. Line Management approach

Supportive

Supportive

Supportive but qualified

Ambivalent Shop Stewards’ approach to: The union. Workers.

Supportive

Individual/ collective

Qualified Individual

Subjective Aspects ‘Them and Us’ attitudes amongst workforce

Evident but variable

More evident but more diffuse

Perceived Need For Trade Union Organisation amongst workforce.

Strong

Strong

Worker Involvement with Trade Union Organisation

Minimal

Minimal

20

5.2 Stage Two Findings: Contemporary Movement in Worker Union Relations

The direction of movement between the contradictory aspects identified in Figure 1 are

summarised below.

5.2.1 Individual – Collective Tendencies

Workers in Centrica exhibited less appreciation of the collective nature of trade union

organisation than workers in Transco. However, collective articulation of the value of trade

union organisation by workers in both Centrica and Transco demonstrated minimal conscious

identification of collective interests and activity. Present conditions in the industry are thus

interpreted as supporting the identification of individual rather than collective interests,

although the tendency is weaker in Transco than Centrica.

5.2.2 Representative – Participative Tendencies

Interaction between trade union officials and workers in both workplaces is generally

conducted at the level of the individual via face-to-face, paper and / or e-communications.

This is consistent with the practice and principles of representative democracy and individual

activity rather than participative democracy and collective activity. Thus, present conditions

in the industry are interpreted as supporting representative and undermining participative

involvement of workers in the union organisation. This tendency was present in more or less

equal measure in both workplaces although the workforce in Centrica exhibited less cohesion

and associated ad hoc collective interaction.

5.2.3 Bureaucratic – Democratic Tendencies

The individualised understandings and representative practices noted above both support, and

are in turn supported by, organisational structures that separate union members and ordinary

21

stewards from collective decision making and union politics. This separation is facilitated in

both workplaces by a hierarchy of representation whereby the responsibility for framing

workers’ interests, problems and possible solutions are progressively passed from individual

worker to ordinary steward to senior steward to national officials. Thus, the formulation,

expression, and pursuit of collective interests rely on and promote the expertise of union

representatives not the active support and involvement of the general membership. This

produces and reproduces a hierarchy of activism and control reminiscent of the bureaucratic

system built in the early years of the union (see Spoor 1967). Heery and Kelly (1994) also

highlight this strengthening of the role of the ‘professional’ officer as a more generalised

phenomena related to the development of what they term ‘managerial unionism’. The present

conditions in the industry are therefore interpreted as supporting bureaucratic6 and

undermining democratic organisation. This tendency is more pronounced in Centrica than

Transco.

5.2.4 Co-operative – Conflictual Tendencies

The downgrading of worker interests and increased use of managerial prerogative are

increasing the tensions between employer and employed. This tendency is generally evident

across the public and former public sectors (Carter and Fairbrother 1999:146). This situation

in principle supports the development of conflict rather than co-operation in the workplace.

However, the ideological and practical approach to worker management relations propagated

by union officials in the UK gas industry is one of co-operation. This creates tension between

union policy and the reality of daily life for workers that is mediated through the jointly

operated institutionalised systems of individual conflict resolution, with collective issues

either passed up the ladder or dealt with via informal interpersonal relations rather than formal

inter-organisational relations at workplace level.

22

In summary the present conditions in the workplaces studied are considered to be both

undermining and supporting the development of collective interests amongst workers.

However, the tendency to undermine collective interests is the more pronounced. In the

absence of any alternative trade union ideology, workers are presented with a limited choice;

they can leave or not join the union and lose representation, or join / stay and accept the

limited benefits presently on offer from trade union membership. As an ex-Transco steward

put it,

It’s the devil or the deep blue sea; you can’t win (Diary note. 19.3.2001).

As a result the development of workers’ collective interests is bereft of a coherent ideological

focus. As Fairbrother (2000: 312) acknowledges, “[i]t is the construction and reconstruction

of the collective identity and practice that distinguishes the union form of organization and

operation [and the] realization of this objective is not and easy task”.

6.0 Discussion and Conclusions

In the UK gas industry Fairbrother identifies the reorganisation of local union structures

within Transco as indicative of the movement towards union renewal (2000: 317). The results

of this research indicate that the process of local union reorganisation referred to represents at

best a conscious attempt to re-establish the character of worker-union relations that existed

before the industry was reorganised and not the beginnings of movement towards union

renewal. Although workers in both workplaces complained about a lack of consultation over

recent changes in their conditions the empirical evidence does not support the interpretation

23

that this also represents the birth pangs of interest in participative forms (union renewal) of

union organisation. Rather the results indicate that:

1) The present movement in the character of worker-union relations represents at least

(typically in Transco) a halt in movement towards participative democracy and largely

(typically in Centrica) a reversal in the direction of movement in the characteristics of

union organisation from the situation pre de-nationalisation.

2) The present conditions in both Transco and Centrica are supporting the development

of individualised, representative, bureaucratic and hierarchical worker-union relations,

and undermining the development of collective, participative democracy and more

egalitarian forms of organisation.

3) Trade union organisation in the workplace is supported by increased tensions between

conflict and co-operation but the collective nature of that organisation is undermined

by a lack of collective reflection7.

The initial conditions of “changes in management structures, the organisation of work,

different negotiating and bargaining arrangements and a disaffection with past union forms”

(Fairbrother 1996a: 112) supporting union renewal are all evident in the workplaces studied.

However these conditions have in the UK gas industry supported the strengthening of union

bureaucracy not undermined it. A consequence of this movement is that workers in Transco

and Centrica perceive the present not past union practice as problematic.

24

In addition the sectionalism Fairbrother (1996a) warns is injurious to union renewal has been

strengthened as a result of union reorganisation based on the industry bargaining

arrangements. This is a process that is increasing as the disaggregation of the industry

continues.

Whilst there was no lack of interest in discussing trade union organisation and practice shown

by the majority of workers interviewed and a great deal of interest shown by some8,

interviewees often commented that they and their colleagues had struggled to discuss issues

not previously considered in any depth. The only decision that workers, in both workplaces,

usually contemplated was whether or not to be a union member. Thus, direct engagement and

consideration of the politics of trade unionism –a prerequisite for the successful

implementation of union renewal (Fairbrother 2000: 331-337) - is not taking place.

Workers’ subjective understanding of their objective interests and their relation to trade union

organisation thus takes centre stage and is highlighted by this research as a particular and

potentially generalised barrier to the actuality of union renewal. In this instance workers’

interests are narrowly focused on individual representation, underpinned by a fear of

individual sanction, and a lack of opportunity and stimuli to discuss the nature and purpose of

trade union organisation. Although Fairbrother (2000) lays out the choices faced by workers,

he fails to articulate how the choices become known or countenanced as viable by workers in

such situations.

Thus the problem at the centre of Fairbrother’s (1996a) union renewal argument is not the

inability of old forms of unionism to adapt to organisational change in response to

membership, managerial and other contextual demands, but where, how and under what

25

conditions ideological change in favour of ‘dialogical’ forms of workplace union democracy

are probable. Although Fairbrother is clear that changing objective conditions impact upon

the subjective perspectives of workers with respect to the nature of trade union organisation

and government, the underlying mechanisms and or their determinants are not identified in his

thesis. This problem is recognised by Fairbrother:

[I]t is not at all obvious how and under what circumstances members can begin to

review their unionism, and decide on the different alternatives they now face (1996a:

114).

As a consequence the movement from emergence to actual renewal is simply asserted as

being the only alternative through which “the promise of more outward-looking and engaged

forms of unionism will be built” (ibid: 143).

The results of this study concur with the results of other work that suggest that work and

employment relations currently existing in the majority of workplaces are more likely to

undermine the active identification of collective interests rather than support their promotion

(Hyman 1989; Michels 1962). In view of the present movement towards increased

bureaucracy, the possibility of union renewal far from becoming a reality is concluded to be

an unlikely future for worker-union relations in the industry.

Simultaneously union membership, contra union decay, is reported to be widely valued by old

and new workers in the industry, albeit at levels below that in the nationalised industry.

Furthermore workers’ collective understanding of the value of trade union organisation is

observed to be increasingly dominated by the idea and practice of trade union purpose serving

individual rather than collective interests. Thus union decay is observed not only to not be

26

taking place as a consequence of individualisation, but union organisation is supported by

and supportive of individualised interests and needs. Thus the relationships between new

individualised employee relations practices and the abandonment of joint regulation and

union representation (Millward et al 2000) are not obvious, a finding supported by other

researchers (Geary 2003).

Whilst these finding do not in themselves negate the possibility of union renewal they

nonetheless raise fundamental doubts about the process becoming a generalised reality. In

particular these doubts are predicated upon the lack of workers’ acknowledgement and

articulation of their collective interests, let alone the ‘outward-looking and engaged forms of

union activity needed to support the union renewal process. Thus whilst the union renewal

thesis helpfully focuses attention on the impact of the objective environment on workers’

ability to influence trade union democratic practice and collective interaction, it neglects the

importance of the impact of workers’ subjective understanding of trade union organisation.

On the other hand the decay perspective focuses attention on individual workers’ subjective

understanding of their situation whilst downplaying the impact of objective conditions on

their thinking. Both approaches therefore present a partial (simplified) view of the

relationship and are consequently unable to adequately account for the apparently paradoxical

situations found in the workplaces studied.

Whilst the conceptual framework developed facilitated this research the arguments and

concepts used have not in themselves been subject to critical theoretical or empirical

examination as part of the study. Such work represents an additional line of enquiry aimed at

reducing our lack of knowledge of the “factors influencing the susceptibility of workers to

27

individualistic and collectivist definitions of interests and strategies for their achievement”

Kelly (1998: 9).

Notes 1 The UK gas industry was de-nationalised in 1986. 2 Lattice Group plc merged with National Grid to form National Grid Transco plc in2002. 3 The GMB union has 11 members in the Lattice site and 4 members in the Centrica site. 4 This aspect of the fieldwork design was not systematically examined although the researcher is aware that some cross group discussions took place as a result of ad hoc and unsolicited comments made by individual workers. 5 The organisation and government of trade unions involves the balancing of several contradictory elements that are continually reassessed and accommodated as the environment within which trade unions operate changes (Allen 1954; Turner 1962; Hughes 1968; Hyman 1975; Blackwell 1990; Smith 2001). Perceived as competing alternatives, these elements provide the concepts commonly used in the literature to characterise particular trade unions and their approach to achieving their purpose (Fig.1). However, perceived as dialectical contradictions they do not represent either or choices between competing alternatives but delineate contradictory aspects reflecting the contradictory nature of trade union organisation and government in capitalist society. 6 Bureaucracy is here conceptualised using the definition provided by Hyman (1989: 181) and used by Fairbrother (2000) in his analysis of the impact of restructuring on union organisations. 7 Other researchers have highlighted the role of political activists (Darlington 2002) and leadership (Fosh 1993) in generating such reflection. 8 It was not uncommon for workers to proffer, outside the interview situation, unsolicited opinions and solutions to the issues I had raised and in one instance my presence and the issues raised prompted a member in Transco to finally take on the role of shop steward.

References Ackers, P. Smith, C. and Smith, P. (1996). The New Workplace and Trade Unionism: Critical Perspectives on

Work and Organisation, London, Routledge.

Allen, V. (1954). Power in Trade Unions, London, Longman.

Arrosmith, J. (2003). “Post-privatisation industrial relations in the UK rail and electricity industries”, Industrial Relations Journal, 32(2): 150-163.

Beynon, H. (1984). Working For Ford, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

Bhaskar, R. (1998). “Philosophy and Scientific Realism”, in Archer, M. Bhaskar, R. Collier, T. Lawson, A, Norrie (eds) Critical Realism: Essential Readings, pp 140-165, London Routlidge.

Blackwell, R. (1990). “Parties and Factions in trade unions”, Employee Relations, 12(1):23-31.

Bloor, M. Frankland, J. Thomas, M. and Robinson, K. (2001). Focus group research in social research, London, Sage.

Boarstone, I, Clegg, H. Rimmer, M. (1975). Workplace and Union: A study of local relationships in fourteen unions, London, Heinemann.

Boggis, J.J. (2002). ‘Identifying the Enemy’- Industrial Relations in Manufacturing Industr in South Wales, Paper presented at the 2002 British Universities Industrial Relations Association conference. Mimeo.

Carter, B. and Fairbrother, P. (1999). “The Transformation of British Public-Sector Industrial Relations: From ‘Model Employer’ to Marketized Relations”, Historical Studies in Industrial Relations, 7:119- 146.

Colling, T. and Ferner, A. (1995). “Privatisation and Marketization”, in P. Edwards (ed), Industrial Relations

Theory and Practice in Britain, pp. 491-514, Blackwell, Oxford.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, London, Sage,

Cully, M. Woodward, S. O’Reilly, A. Dix, G. (1999). Britain At Work As depicted by the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, London, Routledge.

Darlington, R. (2002). “Shop stewards’ leadership, left-wing activism and Collective workplace union organisation”, Capital and Class, 76: 95-126.

Deery, S. and Walsh, J. (1999). “The decline of collectivism? A comparative study of white-collar employees in Britain and Australia”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 37(2): 245-269.

Fairbrother, P. (1990). “The contours of Local trade Unionism in a Period of restructuring”, in P. Fosh and E. Heery (eds.) Trade Unions and their Members: Studies in Union Democracy and Organisation, pp. 147-176, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Fairbrother, P. (1994). “Privitisation and local Trade-Unionism”, Work Employment and Society, 8(3): 339-356. Fairbrother, P. (1996a). “Workplace Trade Unionism in The State Sector”, in P.Ackers, C. Smith and P. Smith

(eds.), The New Workplace and Trade Unionism, pp. 110-148, London, Routledge. Fairbrother, P. (1996b). “Trade unions and human resource management in Britain: case study evidence from the

public sector, utilities and manufacturing”, Employee Relations, 18(6):10-27.

29

Fairbrother, P. (2000). Trade Unions At The Crossroads, London, Mansell. Fairbrother, P. Yates, A. B. (2003). Trade unions in renewal: A comparative study, London, Continuum. Fairbrother, P. and Waddington J. (1990). “The Politics of Trade Unionism: Evidence, Policy and Theory”,

Capital and Class 41: 15-56. Fosh, P. (1993). “Membership Participation in Workplace Unionism:The Possibility of Union Renewal”, British

Journal of Industrial Relations 31(4): 575-592.

Geary, J.F, (2003). “New Forms Of Work Organisation”, in P. Edwards (ed.), Industrial Relations Theory and Practice in Britain, 2ND. Ed, pp.338-367, Blackwell, Oxford.

Goldstein, J. (1952). The Government of Briitsh Trade Unions, London, Allen & Unwin. Goldman, A. E. (1987). The group depth interview: principles and practice, London, Prentice Hall.

Gospel H.F. (1992). Markets, Firms and the Management of Labour in Modern Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Gouldner, A. W. (1969). Patterns of industrial bureaucracy, New York, Free Press.

Heery, E. (2002). “Partnership versus organising: alternative futures for British trade unionism”, Industrial Relations Journal, 33(1): 20-35.

Heery, E. and Kelly, J. (1994). “Professional, participative and managerial unionism: an interpretation of change in trade unions”, Work Employment and Society 8(1): 1-22.

Hughes, J. (1968). Trade Union Structure and Government, HMSO. Hyman, R. (1989). The Political Economy of Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice in a Cold Climate,

Basingstoke, Macmillan.

Hyman, R. (1983). “Trade Unions: Structure, Policies, and Politics”, in Bain (ed), Industrial Relations in Britain, pp. 35-66, Oxford, Blackwell.

Hyman, R. (1975). Industrial Relations A Marxist Introduction, Basingstoke, Macmillan. Ironside. M, and Siefert. R. (2000). Facing Up To Thatcherism: The History of NALGO 1979-1993, Oxford,

Oxford University Press.

Kelly, J. (1998). Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilisation, Collectivism and Long Waves, London, Routledge.

Kessler, S. and Bayliss, F. (1992). Contemporary British Industrial Relations, Basingstoke, Macmillan. Kessler, S and Bayliss, F. (1998). Contemporary Industrial Relations, 2nd ed, London, MacMillan.

Krueger, R. A. and Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus Groups: A practical Guide For Applied Research, London, Sage.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, London, Sage.

Mailly. R, Dimmock. S.J, and Sethi. A.S, (1989). Industrial Relations in The Public Services, Routledge,

London. Mann, M. (1973). Consciousness And Action Among The Western Working Class, Basingstoke, Macmillan.

Martin, R. (1968). “Union Democracy: an explanatory framework”, in McCarthy (ed), Trade Unions, pp. 224-243, Harmondsworh, Penguin.

30

Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative Researching, London, Sage. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Practice, London, Sage.

Millward, N. Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2000). All Change At Work?: British employment relations 1980-1998, as portrayed by the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey series, London, Routledge.

Michels, R. (1962). Political Parties: a Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy,

New York, Free Press. Morgan, D. L. (2002). “Focus Group Interviewing”, in Gubrium, J. F. and Holsten, J. A Handbook of Interview

Research: Context and Method, pp. 141-160, London, Sage.

Morris, H. and Fosh, P. (2000). “Measuring Trade Union Democracy: The Case of the UK Civil Services association”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(1): 95-114.

Newman, G. (1982). Path To Maturity: NALGO 1965-1980, Manchester, Co-operative Press. Offe, C. and Wiesenthal, H. (1985). “Two Logics of Collective Action”, in C. Offe, Disorganised Capitalism:

Contemporary Transformation of Work and Politics, pp. 179-220, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Ollman, B. (1993). Dialectical Investigations, London, Routlidge.

Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Peat, B. (1997). Corporate Culture: resistance and co-operation in a workplace, MA thesis, Keele University, Staffordshire.

Phelps Brown, (1990). “The counter-revolution of our time”, Industrial Relations, 29(1):1-14.

Sayers, S. (1985). Reality and Reason: Dialectic and the Theory of Knowledge, Oxford, Blackwell.

Seifert, R. (1989). “Industrial Relations in the school sector”, in Mailly, R. Dimmock, S. J. and Sethi, A. S. (eds.), Industrial Relations in The Public Services, pp. 199-258, Routledge, London.

Sheldrake. J, (1988). The Origins of Public Sector Industrial Relations, Avenbury, Aldershot.

Smith, P. (2001). Unionisation and Union Leadership: The Road Haulage Industry, London, Continuum.

Spoor, A. (1967). White-Collar Union: 60 Years of NALGO, London, Hieneman.

Terry, M. (ed) (2000). Redefining Public Sector Unionism: UNISON and the future of trade unions, London, Routlidge.

Thompson, P. and McHugh. D, (1995). Work Organisations: A Critical Introduction, Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Turner, H. (1962). Trade Union Growth, structure and Policy, London, Allen and Unwin.

Wallis, W. (2000). Industrial Relations in the Privatised Coal Industry: Continuity, change and contradictions, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Waddington, J. and Whitston, C. (1997). “Why do people join trade unions in a period of membership decline?” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 35(4): 515-546.